Virginia couple sued by Afghan refugees of crazy scheme to kidnap their baby

[Anonymous]

This article gives a whole run down of the case. From the article it looks like the afghan parents reside in Texas.

https://abc7chicago.com/amp/post/us-government-worked-let-marine-joshua-mast-adopt-afghan-war-orphan-documents-obtained-ap-show/18552708/

[Anonymous]

This poor little girl. No doubt the Masts are unable to understand the consequences when this girl is old enough to learn her true story.

Very gross people.

[Anonymous]

Joshua and Stephanie Mast are the most disgusting, evil pieces of shhhht. They are going straight to hell for stealing this child.

[Anonymous]

At least the poor baby has a home.
Sad to say but there is not a lot to envy in the fate of a girl orphan born in Afghanistan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At least the poor baby has a home.
Sad to say but there is not a lot to envy in the fate of a girl orphan born in Afghanistan.

She had a home, with a couple who loved her. A Marine stole her, an ignorant/crooked judge let him adopt the baby in violation of every international law which says the country of origin has to agree that the baby is eligible for adoption.

Don't expect sympathy from international courts for American babies caught up in custody/kidnapping issues in other countries, if American courts ignore international laws.

[Anonymous]

The baby taken out of its home country by Virginia Marine Joshua Mast and his wife Stephanie in violation of international law will stay with them, thanks to the federal government abandoning the case, at the direction of the Trump administration.

https://www.nbcnews.com/world/asia/virginia-supreme-court-rules-us-marines-adoption-afghan-orphan-stands-rcna258881

Virginia Supreme Court rules U.S. Marine’s adoption of an Afghan war orphan will stand

The decision most likely ends a bitter, yearslong legal battle over the fate of the girl, whose adoption over the objections of her relatives was criticized by judges in a scathing dissent.

The Supreme Court leaned heavily on a 38-page document written by Judge Moore, who granted the adoption, then presided over a dozen hearings after the Afghans challenged it. He wrote that he trusted the Masts more than the Afghans, and believed that the Masts’ motivations were noble while the Afghans were misrepresenting their relationship to the child.

The Supreme Court also dismissed the federal government’s long insistence that Trump’s first administration had made a foreign policy decision to unite her with her Afghan relatives, and a court in Virginia has no authority to undo it. The government submitted filings in court predicting dire outcomes if the baby was allowed to remain with the Marine: it could be viewed as “endorsing an act of international child abduction,” threaten international security pacts and be used as propaganda by Islamic extremists — potentially endangering U.S. soldiers overseas.

But the Justice Department in Trump’s second administration abruptly changed course.

The Supreme Court noted in its opinion that the Justice Department had been granted permission to make arguments in the case, but withdrew its request to do so on the morning of oral arguments last year, saying it “has now had an opportunity to reevaluate its position in this case.”

The Supreme Court returned repeatedly to Moore’s finding that giving the girl to the family “was not a decision the United States initiated, but rather consented to or acquiesced in.”

The three judges who dissented were unsparing in their criticism of both the Masts and the circuit court that granted him the adoption.

“A dispassionate review of this case reveals a scenario suffused with arrogance and privilege. Worse, it appears to have worked,” begins the dissent, written by Justice Thomas P. Mann, and signed by Chief Justice Cleo E. Powell and LeRoy F. Millette, Jr.

A Virginia court never had the right to give the child to the Masts, the dissent said.

They castigated the Masts for “brazenly” misleading the courts during their quest to adopt the girl.

[Anonymous]

So basically, if you steal a child you are all good as long as there is nobody able to complain for six months. Thanks Virginia supreme court.

[Anonymous]

Stealing a baby at a refugee camp is wild even for this country. The fact that the Marines are cool with this, and did nothing to punish Mast for taking the baby, despite saying he acted with conduct unbecoming to a Marine is even crazier.

Taking a baby in the country where you're not a citizen and refusing to return it, just makes others abroad more vulnerable to harm.

[Anonymous]

Disgusting, but at this point, probably in the best interest of the child sadly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So basically, if you steal a child you are all good as long as there is nobody able to complain for six months. Thanks Virginia supreme court.

I didn't realize there was a statute of limitations on child trafficking and kidnapping.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Stealing a baby at a refugee camp is wild even for this country. The fact that the Marines are cool with this, and did nothing to punish Mast for taking the baby, despite saying he acted with conduct unbecoming to a Marine is even crazier.

Taking a baby in the country where you're not a citizen and refusing to return it, just makes others abroad more vulnerable to harm.

The Masts are Evangelical Christian. They believe God wanted them to save this child from Afghanistan (and Hell, presumably). In fact they've gotten a lot of lobbying and support from Evangelical Christian networks, which is what made this sleazy adoption possible.

Mast is a military lawyer, so he knew what he was doing was against international law and knew he was misleading his chain of command and improperly using his position and influence. He knew that the VA court was his best chance because they rubber-stamp adoptions all the time, and he knows adoptions are seldom overturned in VA. He venue shopped to make it harder for the Afghan family to get their child back.

And the Marines didn't even slap him on the wrist.

[Anonymous]

Point of clarification. The Afghans aren’t the child’s parents. The parents were killed. They are some distant Afghan family. Like if your child was given to your second or third cousin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Disgusting, but at this point, probably in the best interest of the child sadly.

So Canadians and Europeans should start taking American babies because they have a greater chance of growing up safely there with less fear of violence?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Point of clarification. The Afghans aren’t the child’s parents. The parents were killed. They are some distant Afghan family. Like if your child was given to your second or third cousin.

. . . who then raised her as their own for a year and a half before they were tricked into bringing her to another country for medical treatment and she was stolen from their arms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Point of clarification. The Afghans aren’t the child’s parents. The parents were killed. They are some distant Afghan family. Like if your child was given to your second or third cousin.

No one said the couple caring for the Afghan baby were the parents. All the news articles say the baby's parents were killed in the conflict with the Americans. But Americans shouldn't be taking the babies of the people they kill and bringing them back to the USA when there are relatives to care for those children. There are international laws which says that you need the permission of the country to remove a child and offer the child up for adoption, and none of those laws were followed here.